Tag: Speeches

  • Stephen O Davies – 1967 Speech on Aberfan Inquiry

    Stephen O Davies – 1967 Speech on Aberfan Inquiry

    The speech made by Stephen O Davies, the then Labour MP for Merthyr Tydfil, in the House of Commons on 26 October 1967.

    The House will probably understand why the day of this debate has been my most unhappy day in the very long years I have been a Member. It is not merely because the disaster took place in my constituency; it took place among men, women and even children whom I knew and know.

    We hope that with the debate and the Report and recommendations of the Tribunal we shall put an end to disasters of the kind which occurred at Aberfan. It is not an easy job, but it must be done.

    It is not my intention to add to the sorrows of my neighbours. A number of them are here today and they should leave the House with a conviction that their loss has not entirely been in vain, and that the House will take steps, as it can, to prevent such tragedies in the future. As an ex-miner, and a mining engineer, I have made a life-long study of mining. I have something to say about the potential dangers of similar tragedies that still exist, particularly in the South Wales coal field. On the whole, the coal seams are far below the surface and the physical topography of the Wales coal field adds immensely to the dangers of the tipping that has been going on. The National Coal Board inherited the practices of the long years before it had responsibility for the mines of this country.

    When I was a young coal miner, working in a colliery immediately to the west of where this disaster occurred, I came up from the coal shaft one Monday afternoon—and Monday was a short day in the collieries—to the beautiful sunshine, and I saw on the mountainside, which must have been beautiful, too, at one time, rubbish and debris being tipped from the coal mine. Standing near me on my left was the general manager, a man for whom I had great respect. Indeed, he started many of us as students of mining and of science in coal mining. I turned to him—his name, like mine, was Davies—and I asked, “Mr. Davies, is not that an absolute scandal, bringing all this rubbish from underground and tipping it on the hillside, instead of scientifically stowing it underground and thus perhaps preventing in the future widespread subsidence in the coal field?” He was a great mining engineer. His answer was typical of those days. He said, “Stephen, let me tell you, confidentially, that I have to bring it out because it is cheaper to haul it up the shaft and tip it on the hillside”. Needless to say, I never reported that story while that first-class man held a responsibility under the old dispensation. He was extremely kind to the youngsters in the industry.

    The Coal Board has inherited a beastly and unscientific tradition. It accepted what had been done in the old days. May I deal with the fact that Members of the House have no power to question anything done by the Coal Board which we feel ought to be questioned? I made that point while the Bill nationalising the industry was being passed through the House. In general I supported it, but there was one part of it which I did not like, and that was that we were lifting the industry out of the control of the House and vesting it in a number of unelected and unrepresentative men. I used that expression at the time, and I also pointed out that if a disaster happened in any of the collieries in my constituency and hundreds of lives were lost, neither I nor any other hon. Member would have the right to put a Question to the Minister, except by the grace of Mr. Speaker or his Deputy. We should have no such right unless it were conceded to us—and I say that with no disrespect to the Chair.

    Some of us have spoken a lot about tipping during our days. I have mentioned the topography of these valleys in South Wales and the dangers of subsidence. Time is passing and subsidence is getting a bigger danger than ever. How are we to obviate that danger? We must get these tips cleared. There is no alternative.

    We must be under no illusion that the Aberfan tips have been made safe by today. They have not been made safe. There are two tips right at the top of the old tip, to be seen glaring at us every day, full of threat. They might come down and cover some part of the village again. The Aberfan people insist —and I insist with them—that what is left of those tips must be removed. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales will be with us on this matter.

    Mr. Marsh My hon. Friend has made an incredibly serious statement. As far as I am concerned, there is no foundation whatsoever for his suggestion that the tip at Aberfan still represents a danger to the village. Before I wind up the debate I will make further inquiries, but I thought that this was such a serious statement that I should intervene. I will make further inquiries and if what my hon. Friend says is not the case, I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw it.

    Mr. Davies I hope that my right hon. Friend will take it from coal miners, from those of us who live there, and I have lived there for nearly 50 years, and whose industrial preoccupation is still coal mining, that it is a danger. I should not like this to boomerang on my right hon. Friend after the statement which he has made. I repeat that it is a danger, an obvious danger. I am not panicking over this, although I can forgive certain people who may get a little panicky about it. My right hon. Friend must abandon his opinion, because we had assurances of that kind over and over again before the disaster happened. We were told, “Everything is all right and perfectly safe”. I remind my right hon. Friend of those two tips at the very top, almost on the ridge of the hill between us in the valley and the west. I will tell him that if there is subsidence in that valley and that hillside, and if a creep or tremor runs up that hillside and sets those tips moving again, there could be very serious danger. My right hon. Friend must take advice on this from those who know something about coal mining and not be as ready to accept the advice of those who have misled from the very beginning.

    I feel that it was rather unfortunate that at the very beginning of this great trouble the Attorney-General said that no prosecution would be engaged in whoever might be found responsible. That was a most unfortunate expression on his part. People have been found blameworthy and we say, consequently, guilty. The only thing that might mitigate that blame in the least is what I have already said—that they inherited traditions from the past when nothing but profit mattered. They carried on that tradition and, as a result, this disaster happened and others might again happen.

    The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) referred to the actions of the Press. I must say that, on the whole, the Press has been pretty good, bur there have been exceptions—cold-blooded, cheap, journalese exceptions, some in this country and some abroad. I shall not reproduce the horrible statements made in certain organs of the British Press, statements wholly unrelated to the feelings and expressions of those who suffered and are still suffering from the disaster. But I will quote to the House the filthiest classic of all. I have a photostat copy of the article. It is headed Aftermath of Aberfan Tragedy. It declares: Jealous parents”— can anyone here imagine anything more cruelly vicious and untruthful? Jealous parents of 116 dead kids”— that is not my word— vow to kill a child because he is alive. A whole page is given to this. It goes even further. It gives the name of a young woman of Aberfan and the name of her son. I know this family extremely well. With this write-up, the paper presented what was supposed to be a picture of mother and son. But in the picture the mother looks at least between 12 and 14 stone. The lady referred to, however, is hardly more than half that weight. I shall not upset the House by going into further detail but I think that this article has reached the limit of unscrupulous, conscienceless and cruel journalism.

    I am pleased at least to say that that article was not printed in this country. It is from a greatly advertised American periodical called Midnight.

    I have referred to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. That statement has not been accepted kindly by the people of Aberfan, and I can quite understand why. It is very difficult for any person to see why those adjudged guilty should not be made to make some amends for what they have been accused of doing. My right hon. and learned Friend’s statement at the outset was a mistake. It should be left to the courts to decide whether the Coal Board merely accepted the inherited traditions of the past without question. We in this House were not given the right to question anything that the Coal Board did. This House should nevertheless hold the Coal Board responsible and make it face the consequences of what it has done.

    I know that I have been wandering in my speech but I am sure that I need not apologise to the House. This is the most unhappy time in my long service in this House. I hope that, in any case, the House will agree with me that these tips must be removed and that those still left in Aberfan must be removed at once.

    The Aberfan tips are still a danger. I shall accept no statement to the contrary. I have lived in these valleys all my life and I know something about the effects of subsidence and the springs of water oozing from our hillsides We should not hesitate to finish the job at Atierfan and carry on with the job elsewhere, particularly, as I have said, in South Wales, where the physical topography adds to the dangers which already exist.

  • David Gibson-Watt – 1967 Speech on Aberfan Inquiry

    David Gibson-Watt – 1967 Speech on Aberfan Inquiry

    The speech made by David Gibson-Watt, the then Conservative MP for Hereford, in the House of Commons on 26 October 1967.

    I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for the very sympathetic way in which he has dealt with this very difficult subject, for 21st October, 1966, will certainly rank as one of the grimmest days in Welsh history. It is not the first time that a mining community has suffered, for mining is a hard and dangerous calling, but it is the first time in the long history of the mining industry that the young have had to suffer.

    Anyone who knows the valleys of Wales will agree that they have a special character. They are close communities. The valley which contains the two villages of Aberfan and Merthyr Vale has a community that is especially close, for a great proportion of the men employed there are employed in the Merthyr Vale Colliery. Mining, with all its hazards, creates a particular fraternity among those men, and this closeness was certainly never shown to better advantage than in the awful moments that followed the fatal disaster in October last year.

    Whatever we say today in this debate, we should bear in mind that our main objective is to heal and to give strength to these people, and we should honour those who have suffered and not add to their suffering.

    We would all wish to pay tribute to the many who helped after the disaster—the many volunteers spearheaded, of course, by the miners themselves; to the police, the Civil Defence, the ambulance and nursing services and other public bodies, the many voluntary services and organisations and, indeed, to the troops who came in later. Nor should the Welsh Office be without its share of credit, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in the House some days after the disaster.

    The administrative job, as the Secretary of State has said, was complicated by two factors: first, Aberfan falls under two authorities—Glamorgan and Merthyr Tydvil; secondly, the vast number of people who flocked to Aberfan on that day, some to gaze helplessly but many more to dig and to work. I myself, like other Members of the House, saw dozens of young volunteers going in their cars with equipment, only to be turned away, so great was the crush within the valley. Considering these two problems—the duplication of administration and the crowds who flocked there—the rescue and the clearance work was certainly very well done.

    I would ask the Minister whether the aftermath of this disaster has perhaps changed some of the thinking in the Home Office on this matter. I also ask this question: on such an occasion, who should be in charge—a Minister, a mayor, a policeman or a Civil Defence officer. I think perhaps more guidance might be given on this point from the Home Office in case of any trouble in the future.

    The Tribunal set up by the Secretary of State for Wales was, as the right hon. Gentleman said, composed of three well-known men, and was under the chairmanship of Sir Edmund Davies, a Lord Justice of Appeal, a popular man who was born and bred in the valleys. It is clear that they carried out their unpleasant and difficult task with sympathy and competence, and, indeed patience, for this Tribunal went on for an unnecessarily long time.

    The Tribunal’s Report is clear. It is detailed and it makes recommendations to help the avoidance of future such disasters. On page 131 is the summary of its findings. The first finding is: Blame for the disaster rests upon the National Coal Board. The reasons for its findings are detailed in the Report, and the men whom the Tribunal describe as not being without blame have been named. I do not intend to pursue this. It is a heavy punishment indeed to be named by a tribunal of this sort.

    But what a tale this Tribunal unfolded. It is a sombre catalogue of incompetence, subterfuge and failure, of warnings disregarded, a complete exposure of the lack of communication within the National Coal Board. It must seem incredible to anybody who reads this Report that Tip No. 7 on Merthyr Mountain should ever have been chosen and that it should have been tipped on for so long, when the water problems was abundantly clear, when the tailings problem was admitted and when there were so many complaints about Tip No. 7.

    Complaints came from several organisations, including the Merthyr Corporation, many individuals and, in particular, Councillor Mrs. Williams, whose strong complaint in the Merthyr Planning Committee was reported in the Merthyr Express in 1964. She said: If the tip moved it could threaten the whole school. The complaints were frequent.

    Let me quote but two from the Merthyr Corporation. They started in July, 1959, as we are told on page 52 of the Report. Letters from the Borough Engineer, Mr. Jones, in 1963, referred to apprehensions about the movement of slurry to the danger and detriment of people and property adjoining the site of the tips. The Deputy Borough Engineer, Mr. Bradley, in 1963, wrote a number of letters which were headed Danger from coal slurry being tipped at the rear of the Pantglas Schools. To all these complaints the National Coal Board turned a deaf ear. It went on tipping. I cannot entertain the suggestion that the Merthyr Corporation can be held responsible in any way, nor, indeed could the Tribunal. As Mr. Alun Davies, Q.C., said at the Tribunal: …perhaps the natural mistake made by the Merthyr Corporation was that it accepted the opinions of the experts of this organisation at their own valuation. Little did the Corporation realise how empty were the assurances given by their experts, but in my submission this cannot be blameworthy conduct as between responsible men. To the several complaints from the Merthyr Corporation the answer was given by the National Coal Board that experts were being used. In 1950, the Coal Board wrote to the borough engineer saying that the Board was constantly checking the position of all these tips. In fact, it blinded them with science.

    Alderman Tudor, himself an important witness, who gave considerable warnings to the Coal Board, said to the Tribunal: Remember, I was a layman with limited knowledge of tips. I had raised the matter of tips in the Consultative Committee and I was compelled to accept what Mr. Wynne told me, recognising that he had far more ability than had. And I thought that he was capable enough of making a decision. If he was not capable enough of making a decision, well then, he should have called someone else in. As a layman I could not argue with him, because he could have blinded me, because he knew more of the pits and he knew more of the pit work than I did. The Coal Board blinded them all. It was deaf to all warnings, written and vocal. It was blind, also, to the visual warnings. There has been tip slips on Mynydd Merthyr, which could all have been seen by those in charge. In 1944 a rotational slip on tip 4 was followed by a flow slide; between 1947 and 1951 a rotational slip on Tip No. 5; in 1963 a rotational slide on Tip No. 7 followed by a flow slide. Between 1964 and October, 1966 there were further slipping movements on Tip No. 7. There were also the other tip slides at Tymawr and Cilfynydd, from the neighbouring valleys.

    Yet something stopped these men taking action. Something stopped them concentrating on this tip about which they were constantly warned. What was it? Was it just a combination of ignorance and failure to take responsibility? Was it the pressure of other work at the pit itself and in the rest of the area? Was it the fear that, if they stopped tipping on Tip No. 7, there was very little other land to tip on and the pit itself might be in danger of closure?

    The evidence of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) reflects this question, but the Tribunal, in investigating it, did not find sufficient evidence to support it. Or was it the same attitude which any of us could have taken, an attitude which exists in the minds of those who live below a volcano and which may be epitomised in just a few words—”It will never happen”?

    The Tribunal just blames the National Coal Board and says that there was an absence of tipping policy and no legislation dealing with tip safety. Although the Tribunal found blame for the disaster to rest with the Coal Board, it took a long time for the Coal Board to admit it. At the beginning, its statement gave no hint of acceptance at any level of any degree of blame for the disaster. Indeed, the Board’s counsel said: The Board’s view is that the disaster was due to a coincidence of a set of geological factors, each of which in itself is not exceptional but which collectively created a particularly critical geological environment”. Those words were later shown to be false, for, on the 65th day of the hearing, the Tribunal heard Mr. Piggott, the Board’s expert, say that the only exceptional feature about Merthyr Mountain lay in the fact that it had been used as a tipping site at all. Mr. Sheppard, the Director-General of Production of the National Coal Board, said in answer to Mr. Wien, the Board’s counsel, All the geological features could have been previously appreciated”. There was, in fact, a definite and continued attempt, in the view of the Tribunal, by the Coal Board to avoid responsibility.

    Lord Robens’ original statement and his evidence did not make things any easier. After he had been to Aberfan, Lord Robens told a reporter: It was impossible to know that there was a spring in the heart of this tip which was turning the centre of the mountain into sludge”. Clearly, this was inaccurate, and it was said without technical advice. The evidence which Lord Robens gave to the Tribunal later was self-contradictory and inconsistent, so much so that counsel for the N.C.B., in his closing address, said that it had not assisted the Tribunal and asked that it be disregarded.

    Lord Robens was in a difficulty. He must, like anyone connected with this matter, have been in a state of mental turmoil. He made his inaccurate statement to the television reporter before he had been able to get proper advice. But, surely, he must afterwards have known what the Coal Board’s line was to be before the Tribunal, after that statement and before the Tribunal had met.

    Lord Robens said in his evidence—this is recorded on page 91 of the Report —that by the time the inquiry started on 29th November he was satisfied that the causes were reasonably foreseeable. If that was so, why did the Coal Board persist in its attitude until day 65, when Mr. Piggott, the Board’s expert, finally said: All the geological features could have been previously appreciated”? This is not easy to understand. It is easy, as the Tribunal said, for anyone to be guilty of hindsight. It is easy for us to criticise and to accuse with the Report before us. But it is not easy to understand Lord Robens’ attitude from the time of the disaster to the end of the Tribunal. Blame for the disaster rests with the Coal Board. That is the Tribunal’s first finding, and, as the Secretary of State said, certain officials of the Coal Board have been moved within the Board’s organisation.

    Lord Robens offered his resignation to the Minister. It was certainly the honourable thing for him to do, as head of this vast industrial empire which was blamed for the disaster by the Tribunal. The Minister has refused to accept his resignation. I ask the Minister today to say a little more about his reasons for not accepting it. The only point in the Secretary of State’s speech in which I did not fully concur was when he said that the Minister had given his reasons. The copies of the letters passing between the chairman of the National Coal Board and the Minister do not give us the reasons.

    In his letter to Lord Robens rejecting his resignation, the right hon. Gentleman said: Nor do I consider that the conclusions of the Tribunal are of a kind which call for your resignation. The conclusions of the Tribunal were that the Coal Board was totally responsible for the disaster. The evidence of Lord Robens was not only late, but it was found to be useless by the Coal Board’s counsel, so much so that, as I have said, he asked for it to be disregarded. I cannot help saying to the Minister that I am sure he has further reasons for refusing Lord Robens’ resignation, and from our side we should very much like to hear them. I repeat that we are not asking that Lord Robens should resign. We want only to be told more about the Minister’s reasons.

    The right hon. Gentleman may say that Lord Robens’ leadership is essential to the Coal Board in the difficulties which the industry faces, and with this we could agree. It is a complicated industry. In Wales alone, just under 60,000 men are still employed in just over 70 collieries. Lord Robens has done much to restore morale within the mining industry.

    I put these questions to the Minister. How much does this huge industry decentralise? How much more will it decentralise now, since the study which, we are told, has taken place? How much responsibility did the divisions take in the past? I ask this question because, in all the evidence which was brought before the Tribunal, there was one person who was not called by counsel for the Coal Board. I find it curious that Mr. Kellett, the Chairman of the South-Western Division, was not called to give evidence regarding a pit disaster which occurred within his division. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that tonight.

    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh) May I be clear on the question about Mr. Kellett which the hon. Gentleman asks? Is he asking me why no one —including the Tribunal itself—called Mr. Kellett, or merely why the Coal Board’s counsel did not call him? The Tribunal could have called anyone it wished. It did not call him.

    Mr. Gibson-Watt The point of my question is that one would have expected counsel for the Coal Board to call the chairman of the division. I do not understand it. If there is a reason, I am very ready to accept what the Minister may say. I should like him to give us an answer on the point.

    The Coal Board, like other nationalised industries, enjoys immunity from Parliamentary control. No Member of Parliament may ask Questions in the House about the administrative matters of nationalised industries. This gives the industries, as it were, an impregnability which I am not always sure is in their own interests. In this case, it was not possible for the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to come to the House and ask the Minister concerned about the tip menace. The general public cannot understand this prohibition on Parliamentary probing. Some changes could be made. After all, Mr. Aneurin Bevan did not make that mistake with the National Health Service when he introduced it. Would it not be possible for this matter to be considered by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries?

    Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and, therefore, I want only shortly to say a word about the repair work which has taken place on the Aberfan complex in draining, terracing and reseeding Tip No. 7. As far as one can judge, this has been well done, and when one goes up the valley one, sees the freshly seeded grass. The Under-Secretary of State spoke the other day of the £1 million which is to be spent by the Coal Board in reshaping the tips on Merthyr Mountain, with reseeding and planting of fair-sized trees. It remains to be seen whether this will be adequate. Fair-sized trees do not grow easily, particularly in coal tips, and the job should be done by experts.

    I have no doubt that it will be, but it is not clear that Tips Nos. 4 and 5 are to be included in the landscaping. The Minister has the advantage of me, for he has seen the model and I have not. But we cannot accept any excuse that Tip No. 5 is still burning and, therefore, cannot be removed. That should be made very plain to those who are clearing up that part of Merthyr Mountain. It was stated in the Tribunal, by one of the Coal Board experts, that One may conclude that No. 5 has been standing and is standing at a very low factor of safety. Therefore, we shall need a good deal of convincing that adequate work is being done.

    As the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been a good deal of Press and television coverage of the whole affair. Whatever people’s reactions to some of it may have been, it should at least remind every one of us of the debt the country as a whole owes to the mining communities and the country’s responsibility to see that the existing tips are safe, and that the lives of those living in the valleys shall not only be safer but shall be made less drab by reshaping, reseeding and re-afforestation.

    It is only when one lives there or goes there that one realises that in South Wales there are not hundreds but thousands of coal tips. The real difficulty here, unlike other coal-mining areas, is that there is practically nowhere to put the tips except on the slope at the side of the valley. It is immaterial whether the slipping tip is now the property of the Coal Board or not. A number of small though potentially dangerous slips have taken place in the past few months, and throughout periods of heavy rain, such as we had recently, there is a great deal of anxiety about them.

    The Secretary of State has announced that grants of between 85 and 95 per cent. will be available to local authorities under the 1966 Industrial Development Act. I do not believe that that goes quite far enough. Any local authority which is tackling a scheme of any size—say, of £250,000—and which is asked to provide 10 per cent. of the money to do the repairing and reshaping will have to find a large amount from the local ratepayers. It will probably be dealing with a coal tip that was put there some years ago and in many cases might be just a relic of a bygone economic age. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider this and perhaps be even more generous to the local authorities than they have been so far.

    I have no doubt that the disaster at Aberfan has taught a terrible lesson to the Coal Board, and no doubt it has made certain reorganisations. But the disaster has also brought home to us the lesson that there are many tips that need remedial action in order to relieve anxiety.

    I do not wish to say anything in detail about the disaster fund. When he winds up, will the Minister tell us how the fund, totalling nearly £2 million, has been administered, and what is the up-to-date position?

    I have put a number of questions to the Minister. First, will he give us the reasons why he did not accept Lord Roben’s resignation? Second, will he say why the Chairman of the South Western Division did not give evidence at the Tribunal? Third, will he consult his colleagues about changing the rules which prevent hon. Members from asking Questions about nationalised industries in the House? Fourth, will he ensure that the Coal Board adequately reshapes the tips at Aberfan? Fifth, will the Government be more generous to local authorities? Finally, will he tell us more about the disaster fund?

    Having put those questions to the Minister, I conclude by saying to all who have suffered at Aberfan. “We wish you strength and faith to overcome your grief.”

  • Cledwyn Hughes – 1967 Statement on Aberfan Inquiry

    Cledwyn Hughes – 1967 Statement on Aberfan Inquiry

    The statement made by Cledwyn Hughes, the then Secretary of State for Wales, in the House of Commons on 26 October 1967.

    I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 to inquire into the disaster at Aberfan (House of Commons Paper No. 553). Just over a year ago this House and the whole world was shocked to learn of the dreadful tragedy which had occurred at Aberfan, a small mining village near Merthyr Tydfil. Hundreds of thousands of tons of colliery waste suddenly moved down the steep mountainside and overwhelmed a large part of the junior school and a number of houses in the vicinity. Desperate efforts at rescue were made by those nearby, who were joined by others who poured into Aberfan from all over South Wales and beyond, but no one was taken out of the ruins alive later than two hours after the first movement of the tip, and a hundred and forty four persons, the majority of them young children, lost their lives.

    As soon as news of the tragedy reached me I went immediately to Aberfan to see whether I could be of use. After seeing the site my first concern was to clarify the division of responsibility for the work that was going on. The Chief Constable of Merthyr had been placed in overall operational charge, and I confirmed this. The National Coal Board was asked to concentrate on the stabilisation of the tip, and the local authority was asked to take full responsibility for all the rescue work. The other local authorities, who had so readily and promptly come to help, willingly accepted my invitation to put their resources temporarily under the control of the officials of the Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council.

    Later that evening I was joined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it clear that the whole of the resources of the Government were at my disposal for the rescue operation. Other colleagues in the Government also came to the site.

    I have already in this House thanked all those who took part in the rescue operation for the splendid work which they performed in the most harrowing circumstances.

    No time was lost in setting up a Tribunal of Inquiry into all the circumstances of the disaster and we were fortunate to secure the services as Chairman of Lord Justice Edmund Davies, a Welshman born and bred in a neighbouring valley and renowned for his distinction as a lawyer and for his humanitarian sympathy, and as members of the Tribunal with him, Mr. Harold Harding, the eminent civil engineer, and Mr. Vernon Lawrence, the greatly respected former Clerk to the Monmouthshire County Council.

    Lord Justice Edmund Davies promptly visited the scene of the disaster and arrangements were quickly made for the Tribunal to sit at Merthyr Tydfil and a preliminary meeting was held on 8th November. The proceedings were opened on 29th November by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and so began what was to prove the longest inquiry of its kind in British legal history.

    Written statements were taken by the Treasury Solicitor from all who wished to give evidence, about 250 witnesses in all, and of these 136 gave oral evidence also, being examined and cross-examined by counsel and questioned by members of the Tribunal. Including the preliminary meeting the Tribunal sat in public for 77 days, first at Merthyr Tydfil and later at Cardiff, and commanded, I believe, universal admiration for their patience and thoroughness in elucidating the facts. The Tribunal finally rose at the end of April and the members then addressed themselves to the massive task of sifting the evidence and drawing up their report and recommendations.

    As the House knows, the Chairman placed a copy of the Tribunal’s Report in my hands in the latter half of July and it was printed by order of the House and published on 3rd August. It is not my intention to go through the Report, but I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that I should express our admiration for the high sense of duty with which the Tribunal applied itself to its most onerous task and our gratitude for its findings and for its recommendations on the measures needed to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster. These findings and recommendations, as has been made clear already, have commanded general acceptance by Her Majesty’s Government. We are all much indebted to Lord Justice Edmund Davies and his colleagues who have performed a great public service.

    Before I come to action taken on receipt of the Report, I should like to say a word or two about action taken during, and even before, the sittings of the Tribunal. Immediately after the disaster the National Coal Board ordered an inspection of all tips, active or disused, in the Board’s ownership and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I invited local authorities in England and Wales, invoking the assistance of the National Coal Board as necessary, to arrange for an inspection of all tips in private ownership. These measures disclosed potential instability in several tips and appropriate precautions were taken and remedial action put in hand at once.

    The incidents which occurred during the heavy rains of last week, however, although relatively minor in character, demonstrated that some tips can still present problems and that much remains to be done. As hon. Members will hear from my right hon. Friend who hopes to wind up this debate, the efforts of the National Coal Board, the Government, and all concerned, are being directed to ensure that all problems, both large and small, can be foreseen and promptly dealt with.

    One of the results of the disaster at Aberfan was to give a new stimulus also to the effort to clear up the land left derelict by industrial processes of the past, a problem of which everyone has long been uncomfortably aware, especially in the mining valleys of South Wales. The objective of this effort is not only to reclaim land now useless so that it may be available for industry or housing or other beneficial use, but also to make these areas more attractive to incoming industry and for those who live in them. To pursue this objective more effectively, shortly after the disaster I set up in the Welsh Office in Cardiff a Derelict Land Unit to work closely with the local authorities in preparing schemes of rehabilitation and getting them carried out.

    With the co-operation of the Board of Trade, progress has already been made to an extent which is, I think, most encouraging. So far, the unit has had discussions with 60 local authorities and has visited 115 derelict sites, covering approximately 2,650 acres, in 42 of these local authority areas. The unit has been asked to help by preparing outline proposals for 48 sites, covering about 1,000 acres, and has prepared such proposals for 10 of these sites and is at present engaged on preparing them for others.

    The first stage of one large tip scheme has been completed and work on others is well under way—for example, work on the huge Lewis Merthyr tip in the Rhondda, being done in conjunction with a coal recovery operation. Achievement of the objective inevitably takes a very long time. One cannot heal in a day the scars of great wounds made over generations. It is a task of great magnitude. But during this past year much more work has been done or started than in the whole of the preceding five years—and the way has been prepared for a much accelerated rate of progress in the future.

    The National Coal Board has also changed its basic structure and now has three levels of authority instead of the former five. This change, which was in hand before Aberfan for other reasons, should go a long way to reducing the difficulties of communication to which the Tribunal drew attention. This reorganisation took effect from the beginning of April this year. The Board’s civil engineering organisation has also been strengthened and a post of area civil engineer has been created in each area. The many detailed measures which the Board has taken to improve its organisation and avoid blurring of responsibilities are summarised in a note which has been made available in the Vote Office by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

    Now to return to the Report. The oral evidence tendered to the Tribunal was recorded in a daily transcript which was made available to all the parties appearing before the Tribunal, and of course, to the Tribunal members. Copies of the written evidence received a similar circulation so far as the number of copies available permitted. The Tribunal, in its Report, quotes freely from both the oral and the written evidence and the Report promised the publication of the papers recording the results of the investigations carried out, in view of their scientific interest and importance.

    Arrangements for the publication of this material are well forward, but I must tell the House that the volume is unlikely to appear before next Easter. The reason for this is that it is necessary to redraw, so as to render them suitable for printing, the large number of maps, diagrams and drawings which accompany the text. To publish the text alone would be simpler, but useless, as much of it is a commentary on the illustrations drawings and diagrams. The work is going ahead with all speed and I am told that those who are familiar with the processes of printing scientific documents will be well satisfied if the date I have mentioned can in fact be met.

    Now I come to the Tribunal’s lessons and recommendations and the action which is being taken, or has already been taken, to implement them. Some, as the Tribunal pointed out, require legislation and this is being prepared with a view to its being introduced next Session.

    One of the Questions to be considered is what should be done about the remaining tips at Aberfan. I say “remaining tips” because, during the course of the very extensive work which has been done by the National Coal Board since the disaster, to ensure safety, the rest of the disaster tip has virtually disappeared, and the area of hillside over which it slipped has been cleaned up and covered with a new growth of grass.

    In the spring of this year, the National Coal Board commissioned a landscape consultant, who has lived 20 years in Wales, to prepare a scheme taking into account all the considerations. This scheme, illustrated by a large scale model, was explained to representatives of the Aberfan Parents and Residents’ Association, accompanied by their expert advisers, and to representatives and officials of the Merthyr Tydfil Corporation, at a meeting in the Welsh Office a week ago, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The model is now on display in the village of Aberfan.

    This scheme incorporates all the further safety measures proposed by all the expert advisers who gave evidence before the Tribunal. Apart from these further safety measures, the proposals involve reducing the height of the tips, smoothing the contours, and sowing and planting the whole area below the area of burning tip material with grass, gorse, broom and a variety of trees, including some fairly large transplanted trees.

    I understand that the preliminary civil engineering works—that is to say, the further drainage measures, the removal and redisposition of substantial quantities of tip material, and the terracing—can be completed in about a year. If a beginning is made soon, perhaps all and certainly the greatest part of the sowing and planting can then be done in the planting season of the winter of 1968–69; and, by the spring of 1969, not only would the whole of the tips complex be greatly altered in outline, but also the whole of the area below the burning tips would be green.

    Most of the Tribunal’s recommendations are of general application. First of all, the Tribunal stated that tips should all be regarded as potentially dangerous, although the Tribunal recognises that the dangers mainly arise with active working tips; secondly, tips should all be treated as engineering structures and, therefore, the procedures of preliminary site investigation and subsequent control customary in other branches of civil engineering should be applied. These two propositions are accepted by the National Coal Board and are already being acted on. I commend them to all who are in any way concerned with spoil heaps, whether connected with the coal industry or not.

    I have already mentioned the new structure of the National Coal Board, which will improve, among other things, the state of internal communications. The observations of the Tribunal upon this aspect are not, I am sure, unheeded by many—and I am not now referring only to the coal industry—who have had occasion to consider how their own conduct would have stood up to a similar searching inquiry. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that there is a lesson here for us all, for everybody engaged in any enterprise where more than a handful of people are involved.

    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power proposes to appoint a National Tip Safety Committee to advise him, and perhaps other Ministers, also, on problems affecting the stability of tips. Discussions are now going on as to the terms of reference such a Committee might have and I hope to see it constituted in the very near future. The Committee, when set up, will be asked as one of its first tasks to consider a standard code of practice.

    The Tribunal’s recommendations which require legislation fall mainly within the field of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who will be replying to this debate on behalf of the Government, though there is one matter affecting local authorities which is in the field of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and myself.

    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is preparing legislation to amend the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, so as to give effect to those of the Tribunal’s recommendations which require new legislation. He will give the House details of his proposals and the House may take it that they will be comprehensive. Broadly speaking, the Ministry of Power and the Mines Inspectorate will be given the additional powers and duties recommended by the Tribunal and tips forming part of active mines and quarries will be regularly inspected by persons competent to judge their stability.

    I should like myself to say something about the powers and responsibilities of local authorities, although details will need to be worked out in consultation with local authority associations. If any local authority has any reason to fear that a working tip presents a hazard, it should at once inform the Ministry of Power or the local Inspector of Mines. The Ministry will immediately make an investigation and, if need be, require the owner to carry out tests or remedial work. If the local authority is still not satisfied, the matter can be referred to an independent arbiter, who will be empowered to order further work to be done.

    In the case of a disused tip which gives cause for anxiety, a local authority should also get in touch with the Ministry and obtain the advice of the Mines Inspectorate. In the light of this advice, the local authority could decide whether there was a prima facie case of instability. The authority would be empowered to require the owner to carry out specified tests and to furnish a report and also to carry out specified remedial work. The local authority would also have default powers to carry out tests or do the works themselves or appoint contractors to do so. If the owner objected to any test or remedial work, he could appeal to the Minister of Power.

    These proposed arrangements should go far to ensure that local authorities are fully empowered to protect the inhabitants of their area—a protection which, as the Tribunal pointed out, it is every citizen’s right to expect.

    Besides safety, there is the question of the general appearance of working tips. The local planning authorities are able to control this by imposing conditions when they grant planning permission. This applies both to tipping operations and also to the recovery of material from disused tips.

    I now turn to a subject on which the Tribunal very properly made no recommendation, though no small part of its Report was concerned with it, namely, the responsibility of individuals for the disaster and the strictures passed on other individuals whose conduct was censured by the Tribunal. This aspect of the Report has received long and anxious consideration by the Government, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and by the National Coal Board. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General came to the conclusion that the facts disclosed by the Report did not justify the institution of criminal proceedings. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power did not accept the offered resignation of the Chairman of the National Coal Board and made known his reasons for asking Lord Robens to continue in office. Those individuals named in the Report who are still in the service of the National Coal Board have been moved to other work.

    In paragraph 210 of the Report the Tribunal referred to “the vastly disagreeable task of censure” which the sense of public duty of its members obliged it to carry out. In a moving passage in paragraph 207, the Tribunal expressed its belief that Whether or not named or adversely referred to in this Report, there must be many today with hearts made heavy and haunted by the thought that if only they had done this, that or the other the disaster might have been averted. Of these, some will blame themselves needlessly; others, while blameworthy in some degree, will condemn themselves with excessive harshness; yet others must carry the heavy burden of knowing that their neglect played an unmistakeable part in bringing about the tragedy. There, in my view, the matter ought now to be allowed to rest.

    Finally, I should like to speak of the village of Aberfan as it is today. A sad anniversary has just passed and renewed the poignancy of grief for those who lost loved ones. But life must go on, and Aberfan is bravely facing the task of physical reconstruction and its families the no less difficult task of restoring mental tranquillity. Thanks to the wonderfully generous response of the public to the appeal for the Aberfan Fund, the resources are not lacking. But if the inhabitants are to find peace, they need a period away from the glare of publicity to which they have been exposed for so long. I appeal to everyone to give them the quiet they need to bear their burden of grief and to rebuild their shattered lives.

  • Emlyn Hooson – 1966 Comments on Aberfan

    Emlyn Hooson – 1966 Comments on Aberfan

    The comments made by Emlyn Hooson, the then Liberal MP for Montgomeryshire, in the House of Commons on 24 October 1966.

    On behalf of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends I would like to be associated with the expressions of sympathy which have followed this appalling tragedy. It is an appalling tragedy for the Welsh nation apart from anything else.

    May I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales on his appointment of Lord Justice Edmund Davies to conduct the inquiry. No one is better qualified to carry it out.

    I would also like to associate myself with the thanks and appreciation expressed in the House to all of those who have given such unstinting help in this terrible situation.

    Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that it would be wiser, since this inquiry has now been ordered, if no one made statements as to the cause of this tragedy? It should be a matter for the tribunal to investigate rather than for anyone, however eminent, to make statements. Would he also reassure the House that the inquiry will not confine itself to the dangers from existing slag heaps in South Wales? From my own knowledge I can tell of one slag heap in North Wales, not owned by the National Coal Board, which gave some trouble some years ago. I am sure that the House is very pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that the legal position with regard to responsibility for these tips is being investigated by the Lord Justice Edmund Davies committee.

    Mr. Hughes The possible causes of the accident are a matter for the inquiry, and it is inappropriate and improper for me or anyone else to comment upon them.

    We are taking similar action in relation to tips in North Wales.

  • Kay Andrews – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II (Baroness Andrews)

    Kay Andrews – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II (Baroness Andrews)

    The tribute made by Kay Andrews, Baroness Andrews, in the House of Lords on 10 September 2022.

    My Lords, it has never been a greater privilege to be a part of this House and listen to some extraordinary speeches; they will last as long as this House does, I think. With humility, I want to share some of my own experiences.

    Last night, when we heard that extraordinarily magisterial and immensely moving speech from the new King, King Charles III, he made us remember some different aspects of our late Queen. He spoke of

    “a promise of destiny kept”

    and renewed that same promise of lifelong service. Of course, one of those promises that the Queen made was the one she made to the people of Aberfan, after the disaster in 1966 when 116 children and 28 adults died, that she would return. It was one of the defining moments of her reign and was not without controversy. For those of us who come from those valleys, it marked an extraordinary relationship. At that terrible time, the people of Aberfan were immensely and uniquely comforted by her. She was deeply affected; she sat quietly with them, sometimes quite silently.

    One of the bereaved families said, “She was with us from the beginning”, and she more than kept her promise to return. She went back four times, once to open the new school. She understood and paid tribute to the dignity and the indomitable spirit that characterises the people of that village and the surrounding valleys, and that rare gift exemplified so much of what made her so special to everyone she met. She understood grief. She had been brought up never to show her emotions, but she knew what people felt, and people knew that she knew. She knew that silence is more eloquent than words and she taught us that there is a unique value in silence.

    She also had a terrific zest for life. I experienced that because I am a member of the trade union of previous Baronesses in Waiting. She treated us with enormous respect and helped us understand the role. The humility in being present to greet a distinguished overseas Head of State who is expecting to meet the Queen and finds himself instead meeting an overenthusiastic and completely unknown Baroness is something you never quite forget. It teaches you a life lesson about expectations.

    Her Majesty honoured her promises and the sweep of history in so many other ways. One of the charities with which she had the longest association was the Charterhouse, the great medieval charity in the City so well known to Members of this House—there are many of its previous governors in this House. The Charterhouse has stood for 400 years as a symbol of philanthropy, one of the four buildings in London that Elizabeth I would recognise. There have been royal governors for 400 years. Elizabeth I made her base there after the death of Mary. For 400 years, Thomas Sutton’s will has been honoured in the community of elderly men and women who live out their final days there. I am privileged to be a governor and to have that duty of care now.

    The late Queen’s first visit was in 1958, after the restoration following the Blitz. Her final visit, some 60 years later in 2017, was to open our new museum, which revealed the Charterhouse in its full 700-year history. Like every governor, she would have had three brothers in her care. She caused some confusion occasionally by referring to them. Yesterday, our brothers honoured her and the love they feel for her when they tolled the Charterhouse bell 96 times for their royal governor, who joined hands over the centuries with that other great Elizabeth, 400 years ago. I have an image of those two Elizabeths sitting in the great chamber at the Charterhouse, conspiring together about how to get the best from their councillors.

    She also honoured her people in other ways. During her 60th Jubilee, in 2012, the first excursion that she made was to Burnley, on a freezing day. She travelled up the canal on the “Pride of Sefton”, with Prince Philip and the then Prince Charles, to see the transformation of Burnley mill into a new centre of technical education. It was one of many such projects to which our present King was committed for so long and with such success, and it enabled us at the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and English Heritage to bring back to life and to repurpose significant historic buildings which could bring new life to communities such as Burnley. The mill was put to work again, for another generation to learn how to master the future.

    That day, in that mill, on the threshold of its new life, the Queen spoke of her immense pride in all that her son had achieved, not just in the restoration of our physical heritage but in empowering so many young people, through the Prince’s Trust, to find the confidence and success to make their own place in history.

    It is no wonder that we have all felt so completely overwhelmed by hearing the accounts of people we have met, or those people I saw at Victoria Station this morning armed with bunches of flowers and on their way to Buckingham Palace. We are unmoored by the death of a Queen for whom duty was her signature on a page of history, as well as her love. We now have a new King who shares her values and who will, as he said last night, bring loyalty and love, warmth and empathy in connection. We are extremely lucky to have lived in her reign, and we will be lucky to live in his.

    God save the King.

  • John Alderdice – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II (Baron Alderdice)

    John Alderdice – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II (Baron Alderdice)

    The tribute made by John Alderdice, Baron Alderdice, in the House of Lords on 10 September 2022.

    My Lords, it is a truism of politics generally—and, no doubt, of your Lordships’ House—that it is easier to make a long speech than a short one. In respect of Her late Majesty, all of us could speak at length with enthusiasm, passion and not a little sadness about our experiences of her, both closely and at a distance. I will restrict myself to two comments about not the personal relationship with her but what she achieved and represented. One is about international relations, which are an important matter for me. The other is about the Irish peace process, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, just referred.

    When Her Majesty came to the Throne, after two World Wars, there was a huge focus on creating an international rules-based order. There was a particular focus on the United Nations. For a long time, that was and continued to be an inspiring hope—perhaps until relatively recent times—because the United Nations Security Council is and was to be the pinnacle of international law. Now we find that two of its permanent members are, by any account, guilty of crimes against humanity. Were that to be the case of any of the members of our Supreme Court, we would lose faith in that jurisdiction.

    Others of Her Majesty’s Ministers focused a great deal on getting us into the European project or, more latterly, getting us out of it. But she had a different focus during all those years. She was supportive of what her Governments were doing, of course, but it was the Commonwealth that was her particular passion, as the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, rightly said. It is my conviction that, had it not been for her passionate commitment and that of the rest of the Royal Family, we probably would not have a Commonwealth today. Instead, we have an important network of relationships that some countries that were not even members of the British Empire have applied to join.

    Yesterday, I got off a plane to hear of Her Majesty’s death after a visit to Singapore at the invitation of the Singaporean Government. I have often found myself being critical of them. It seemed to me that they were not living up to some of the principles I felt were important. I came back, however, with a different set of feelings. They understand China in a way that we do not. They have a fellow feeling with India that we cannot have. They understand Asia and the West. If we are not to fall into a terrible war with China and others in the East, we desperately need that depth of understanding. It is an understanding that Her late Majesty the Queen had very deeply.

    I speak of the Irish peace process. In her Golden Jubilee year, 2002, Her Majesty visited not just the Parliament here but the Senedd in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland. I was advised by the Northern Ireland Office, however, that she would not be visiting the Northern Ireland Assembly of which I was Speaker because the Northern Ireland Office felt that it would cause difficulties. I said, “I see. You’re wanting to create a constitutional crisis.” “Oh no,” they said, “We’re trying to avoid trouble.” I said, “Well, how do you think unionists will respond if Her Majesty can go to every other Parliament but not to Stormont?” They said, “But it won’t go well.” I replied, “Just back off for a little while and give me a chance to talk to those involved.”

    I talked to Dr Paisley, who was very wroth because he was convinced that it would not be possible. I talked to others. Eventually, I talked to Alex Maskey, the then Chief Whip of Sinn Féin. I said, “Alex, you know, I want to be able to invite the Irish President here but I cannot invite her if Her Majesty cannot come.” “Ah,” he said, “We’ll have a chat about it.” So the ard chomhairle of Sinn Féin got together. You can imagine them speaking in Dublin about Her Majesty’s visit to Belfast. They came back to me, and the answer was clear: “We will deal with it with a dignified detachment. We won’t be able to be there but we won’t create trouble.”

    On the morning of Her Majesty’s visit, Gerry Kelly was interviewed on the BBC. My first response was a sinking heart. What would Gerry say? He was asked whether he would meet her. He said, “Well, if she’s going to hand the place over, I’d be very happy to meet with her, but I don’t expect that’s what she’s coming for. So we will deal with it with a dignified detachment.” Of course, that is what happened; they dealt with it appropriately.

    We went on to have the remarkable visit to Dublin and the meeting with Mary McAleese. Then, in 2012, we had the visit to Belfast where Her Majesty shook hands with Martin McGuinness. In 2002, it was dignified detachment. In 2012, it was dignified engagement. None of that would have happened had she not, by her whole life, person and example, demonstrated dignity in relations and respect for and mutual recognition of those with whom she and her country disagreed. She was a remarkable person. She has given those of us in my part of the United Kingdom a remarkable legacy, but we are fortunate because King Charles III is also part of her legacy. God save the King.

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (04/10/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (04/10/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 4 October 2022.

    Ukrainians!

    Today, I will also begin my address with a message about what happened in Türkiye.

    Finally, we managed to organize a meeting of our boys, commanders from “Azovstal”, with their relatives. The meeting is in Türkiye, where our warriors stay in accordance with the agreement on their release.

    They are completely safe – with the guarantees of President of Türkiye Erdoğan. They are provided with proper conditions. And now they can see their relatives.

    They have not seen each other for many months. And now I thank everyone who made it possible for them to be with their families again.

    And we will do everything to make such a meeting possible for the families of all Ukrainians who are still in Russian captivity one day – a meeting with their relatives.

    Ukraine appreciates people. Saves people. And helps all those who need help. These are fundamental rules for our state. And it will always be so.

    A large group of our officials continues the work on providing the necessary assistance to all those released from Russian captivity. As you understand, there are a lot of issues. This is not only treatment and rehabilitation, but also a large volume of social issues, often legal. The state will certainly help solve all of them.

    At the same time, everything is being done quite intensively at various levels of government to restore normal life in the areas liberated from the occupiers.

    In total, these are more than 450 settlements in the Kharkiv region alone – those that were liberated thanks to the defense operation that began in September and is still ongoing.

    The work of transport, post office, police, normal supply of water, gas, electricity is being restored – as much as possible. The occupiers left many mined areas, many tripwires, almost all infrastructure was destroyed. The damage is colossal.

    But life is returning – it is returning wherever the occupiers were driven out. We also make social payments – pensions, salaries. In particular, to the teachers who remained loyal to Ukraine and did not switch to the curriculum of the occupiers.

    This is actually very important. Russian propagandists intimidate people in the areas still under the control of the occupiers that Ukraine will allegedly consider almost everyone who remains in the occupied territory as collaborators. Absolute nonsense.

    Our approach has always been and remains clear and fair. If a person did not serve the occupiers and did not betray Ukraine, then there is no reason to consider such a person a collaborator. These are elementary things. If the teacher remained a Ukrainian teacher and did not lie to the children about who is the enemy… Or if a person remained a Ukrainian employee of the Ukrainian utilities service and, for example, helped preserve the energy supply for people, then such a person cannot be blamed for anything.

    Hundreds of thousands of our people were in the temporarily occupied territory. Many helped our military and special services. Many simply tried to survive and waited for the return of the Ukrainian flag.

    Of course, there were those who betrayed Ukraine. But such cases are quickly established by the Security Service of Ukraine and are not massive. Russia did not meet mass support in Ukraine, and this is a fact.

    Today, the offensive movement of our army and all our defenders continued. There are new liberated settlements in several regions.

    Fierce fighting continues in many areas of the front. But the perspective of these hostilities remains obvious – more and more occupiers are trying to escape, more and more losses are being inflicted on the enemy army, and there is a growing understanding that Russia made a mistake by starting a war against Ukraine.

    Of course, there are many fanatics out there. Those who will never admit the obvious, that this is a pointless war for Russia that Russia cannot win. Because it is impossible to defeat a nation that preserves unity and knows what they are fighting for.

    The same cannot be said about the people of Russia as about the Ukrainian people. None of those who are now being sent to war after criminal mobilization will be able to explain: what is the point of this for him personally? Why should he risk his life?

    Among the dead occupiers we can already see those who were taken just a week or two ago. People were not trained for combat, they have no experience to fight in such a war. But the Russian command just needs some people – any kind – to replace the dead. And when these new ones die, more people will be sent. This is how Russia fights. That’s how it will lose as well.

    No sham referenda, announcements about annexations, conversations about the borders they invented and drew somewhere, will help them.

    There is a clear and internationally recognized border of Ukraine. There are lives we must protect. There is security we must restore. And all this will happen. We are doing all this.

    And one more thing.

    Today, Russia was ultimately removed from decision-making in world aviation. There will be no more representatives of the terrorist state in the governing body – the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization. This is a crucially important world institution, a specialized agency of the UN, and this is a quite eloquent signal to all other international organizations.

    A state that has violated so many norms of international law cannot be kept in any international organizations as a supposedly normal participant. Russia has no place in the global community.

    I thank everyone who helps us defend freedom!

    Glory to all who fight for Ukraine!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in Birmingham on 4 October 2022.

    It is such a privilege to be here.

    Being Home Secretary is not just a tremendous honour…

    …keeping the British people safe and securing our borders are the highest duties of state.

    Our Prime Minister understands those duties.

    And so do I. We stand for the law-abiding majority of Britons.

    And in doing so, I draw on a long tradition of Conservative Home Secretaries who were willing to challenge failing orthodoxy. They refused to accept defeat.

    Michael Howard, on his first day as Home Secretary, was told that there was nothing he could do about the inevitable rise in crime.

    He disagreed – and crime fell dramatically.

    They said that Theresa May couldn’t deport Abu Qatada, the Islamist extremist. But – despite setbacks along the way – she made it happen.

    Priti Patel negotiated a ground-breaking deal with our partners in Rwanda to bring forward a new solution to the challenge of illegal migration – providing protection in Rwanda for those that need it while breaking the business model of people smugglers.

    I am grateful to Priti and Boris for the foundations that they laid.

    Serious violent crime has fallen, as has overall crime, excluding fraud and online theft.

    And we are well on the way to 20,000 additional police officers.

    But a Home Secretary can never be complacent – and some things still need fixing. I’m pleased to be working with a brilliant team of Ministers who I am so pleased to see with us today: Tom Tugendhat, Tom Pursglove, Jeremy Quin, Mims Davies and Lord Andrew Sharpe, supported by our excellent PPSes – Gareth Davies and Shaun Bailey, they all bring talent and expertise to the Home Office.

    Now, the Prime Minister and I want to see homicide, serious violence, and neighbourhood crime fall by 20 per cent.

    Some of our most committed and courageous people serve in the police. In Belfast last week, I joined police leaders to pay tribute to those officers who have died in action. Their ultimate sacrifice is one for which we owe a huge debt of gratitude.

    So, yes I am immensely proud of our police.

    Many on the left want to defund the police.

    Well I say to the militants, I say to the anarchists and the extremists: I will always back our policemen and women.

    That’s what being on the side of the law-abiding majority means.

    But we also need to be frank when things go wrong. Some police officers have fallen devastatingly short of the standards expected.

    We need to get back to common sense policing, empowering the Police to tackle the real issues facing the public – not policing pronouns on twitter or non-crime hate incidents.

    That’s why I’m pleased that Greater Manchester Police, Hampshire, Bedfordshire, and Northamptonshire and the Metropolitan Police have all promised to visit the scene of every burglary.

    But the law-abiding majority expect every force to investigate every neighbourhood crime – and so do I. Drugs, car theft, vandalism and anti-social behaviour cannot be ignored.

    Perhaps the most unsettling, unspeakable crime of all is rape.

    As an MP and as Attorney General, I have already seen first-hand how the system needs to improve. I can’t change things overnight, but I will not accept the status quo.

    Policing is a public service, and must be accountable to you the public.

    That’s why it’s right to publish league tables that show how well every force in England and Wales is doing in their fight against crime.

    You all have a right to know. And greater transparency will drive up standards.

    The modern world inevitably brings new challenges. Our National Security Bill will ensure that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to stay ahead of our country’s evermore sophisticated adversaries.

    Yet everything starts from getting the basics right –

    We need common sense policing. Unashamedly and unapologetically on the side of the law-abiding majority.

    That means that the mob needs to be stopped.

    The police must have all the powers that they need to stop protestors who use guerrilla tactics and bring chaos and misery to the law-abiding majority.

    It’s not a human right to vandalise property. It’s not my ‘freedom of expression’ to protest violently. No – you can’t just start a riot or glue yourself to the roads and get away with it.

    Yes, friends, as Attorney General, I had to go to court to get some of these simple truths established.

    The judges agreed with me last week in the Cout of Appeal in the Colston Statue case. And that’s why our Public Order Bill will empower our police to stop this nuisance. So whether you’re Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain or Extinction Rebellion – you cross a line when you break the law. That’s why we will keep putting you behind bars.

    It’s very easy to say that the culture wars are a distraction.

    But make no mistake, the Left are attacking our profound, elemental values, wanting to replace them with the poison of identity politics. And when poison seeps into the public sphere, it distracts our public servants from doing their real job. That philosophy dominates the Labour Party, whatever Sir Keir Starmer pretends.

    And that’s why it is not only wrong for the police to take the knee. It is wrong for them to join in with political demonstrations; it is wrong for biologically male police officers to strip search female suspects.

    And it is not just that pandering to identity politics is a huge waste of time.

    They need to stick to catching the bad guys.

    To those who dismiss political correctness as a conservative obsession, I say this. Visit Rochdale. Visit Telford. The grooming gangs scandal is a stain on this country and it’s what happens when political correctness becomes more important than criminal justice.

    More PCs, less PC.

    My other mission is to control our borders.

    Firstly, legal migration.

    I backed Brexit because I wanted Britain to have control over our migration and to cut overall numbers. Brexit was meant to give us a say on how we determine our own migration policy.

    We should use our newfound control to deliver the kind of migration that grows our economy, for example that helps projects that have stalled or builds friendships and relationships with our allies.

    But the truth is parts of our system aren’t delivering. We need to end the abuse of the rules and cut down on those numbers that aren’t meeting the needs of our economy.

    And we mustn’t forget how to do things for ourselves. There is absolutely no reason why we can’t train up enough of our own HGV drivers, butchers, or fruit-pickers.

    The way we will build a high-skilled and high-wage economy is by encouraging business to invest in capital and domestic labour. Not relying wholly on low-skilled foreign workers.

    This isn’t just about policy or economics for me. It’s intensely personal. My parents came here in the 1960s from Kenya and Mauritius. They loved Britain from afar, as children of the Commonwealth. It was Britain that offered them security and opportunity as young adults.

    I’m not embarrassed to say that I love Britain. No Conservative is.

    It’s not racist for anyone, ethnic minority or otherwise, to want to control our borders.

    It’s not bigoted to say that we have too many asylum seekers who are abusing the system.

    It’s not xenophobic to say that mass and rapid migration places pressure on housing, public services and community relations.

    I reject the Left’s argument that it is hypocritical for someone from an ethnic minority to tell these truths.

    My parents came here through legal and controlled migration. They spoke the language, threw themselves into the community, they embraced British values. When they arrived, they signed up to be part of our shared project because the United Kingdom meant something distinct. Integration was part of the quid pro quo.

    That didn’t mean abandoning their heritage, but it did mean adopting British identity. An identity of which we should all be proud. This is the best place on earth to come and live in, but I fear that we are losing sight of the core values and the culture that made it so. The unexamined drive towards multiculturalism as an end in itself combined with the corrosive aspects of identity politics has led us astray.

    I saw this when I went to Leicester recently. A melting pot of cultures and a beacon of religious harmony. But even there, riots and civil disorder have taken place because of failures to integrate large numbers of newcomers. Such conflict has no place in the UK.

    Or when we look at the Prevent scheme, we see how cultural tensions within communities are not being handled well. The murderer of our much missed dear friend Sir David Amess, had been referred to Prevent. But it couldn’t stop him.

    We cannot as a people be cowed into fear by vocal minorities who attempt to undermine our common sense instincts. And as Home Secretary, I will make sure that Prevent is fit for purpose.

    The law-abiding majority deserve nothing less.

    And lastly we have got to stop the boats crossing the Channel. This has gone on for too long. But I have to be straight with you, there are no quick fixes.

    The problem is chronic. Organised criminal gangs are selling a lie to thousands of people.

    Many are drowning in the Channel.

    Many are leaving a safe country like France and abusing our asylum system.

    So what is our plan?

    Firstly, our work with the French has prevented about half of all crossings. I know that alone will not work. So I will work closely with the French to get more out of our partnership. Both on the French coastline and further upstream against the organised criminal gangs.

    Secondly, we need to find a way to make the Rwanda scheme work.

    Thirdly, we need to do more to get asylum-seekers out of hotels – currently costing the British taxpayer £5 million per day.

    And fourth, we cannot allow a foreign court to undermine the sovereignty of our borders.

    A few months ago, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg did just that,

    By a closed process, with an unnamed judge and without any representation by the UK, a European court overrode our Supreme Court.

    As a result, our first flight to Rwanda was grounded.

    We need to take back control.

    But friends, I need to be honest with you. The Strasbourg Court is not the only problem.

    Now everyone agrees that we must fight the evil of modern slavery. I’m immensely proud of the UK’s global leadership in protecting genuine victims.

    But the hard truth is that our modern slavery laws are being abused by people gaming the system. We’ve seen a 450% increase in modern slavery claims since 2014.

    Today, the largest group of small boats migrants are from Albania – a safe country. Many of them claim to be trafficked as modern slaves. That’s despite them having paid thousands of pounds to come here, or having willingly taken a dangerous journey across the Channel.

    The truth is that many of them are not modern slaves and their claims of being trafficked are lies.

    And it’s not just illegal migrants.

    Since entering the Home Office I have seen egregious examples of convicted paedophiles and rapists trying to game the system.

    Making last minute claims of modern slavery to block their removal from our country.

    Some have even gone on to commit further crimes in the interim.

    In one case, we convicted a sex offender from South Africa who spent a year in prison.

    He was about to be deported from the UK – and lo and behold, he made a claim of modern slavery.

    Our removal was stalled – and in this time he went on to commit a further rape.

    He is now back behind bars – but when he’s released, well – it’s all so terribly predictable.

    In another case, a paedophile from Pakistan received 10 years in prison.

    But at the end of his prison sentence, he put in a spurious claim to be a modern slave.

    Even when they got through that process, he made a second claim – which blocked his removal.

    We simply can’t go on like this.

    We need to make sure that our system strikes the right balance. Our laws need to be resilient against abuse – while at the same time ensuring we help those in genuine need.

    We have got a proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need.

    From supporting thousands of BNOs fleeing persecution in Hong Kong; to welcoming nearly 20,000 Afghan nationals fleeing war and terror, to offering immediate refuge to thousands of Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s barbarism…

    …The UK, and this Conservative Government has always been there to hold out the hand of hope to those who need it most.

    But the law simply isn’t working.

    It isn’t working in the interests of the British people or people who need our help the most.

    Our laws are being abused.

    Abused by people smugglers and criminals pedalling false promises.

    Abused by people making multiple, meritless and last-minute claims.

    Abused by tactics from specialist, small boat-chasing law firms.

    This cannot continue.

    So, Conference, I will commit to you today, that I will look to bring forward legislation to make it clear that the only route to the United Kingdom is through a safe and legal route.

    And that’s so we can help support those who need our help the most, including women and girls.

    If you deliberately enter the United Kingdom illegally from a safe country, you should be swiftly returned to your home country or relocated to Rwanda that is where your asylum claim will be considered.

    UK policy on illegal migration should not be derailed by abuse of our modern slavery laws, Labour’s Human Rights Act, or orders of the Strasbourg Court.

    And we will always of course work within the bounds of international law, but we cannot allow this abuse of our system to continue.

    And of course, at the same time, we need to continue to stamp out illegal working practices.

    We already have some of the toughest penalties for those not playing by our rules, but we will redouble our efforts to go after them.

    I need to be straight with you, Conference. This won’t be easy. I cannot promise a solution immediately. We’ve all heard pledges and promises but this is a complex and entrenched problem. And there are many forces working against us.

    The Labour Party will try to stop this. The Lib Dems will go bananas. The Guardian will have a meltdown.

    As for the lawyers. Don’t get me started on the lawyers.

    And I’m a recovering lawyer.

    But what can I pledge to you is my total and undeniable and unfettered and unconditional commitment to doing whatever it takes. Despite the obstacles, I won’t give up on you and I won’t give up on the British people.

    The time for words is over. Now is the time for action. Time to put the will of the hard-working patriotic majority at the heart of all we do.

    It’s time for the police to stop virtue-signalling and start catching robbers and burglars.

    It’s time to tackle the small boats – no ifs, no buts.

    Friends, it’s time for common sense.

    I stand ready to serve you. I stand ready to deliver.

    The time is ours, the time is now.

  • Nick Gibb – 2012 Speech to the Voice Conference

    Nick Gibb – 2012 Speech to the Voice Conference

    The speech made by Nick Gibb, the then Education Minister, at the Voice Conference in Manchester on 26 May 2012.

    Thank you for those kind words Philip.

    Today’s teachers operate under great scrutiny, in conditions that require significant reserves of professional and intellectual skill.

    On a day-to-day basis, they are expected to stretch gifted students and engage troubled teenagers; to inspire children discovering new subjects and to ensure that every pupil gets a firm grasp of the basics.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Voice members, both teachers and support staff, for all their hard work and professionalism.

    And thank you to Voice itself for engaging with Government and putting forward the views of its members so effectively.

    In particular, I’d like to mention Voice’s approach to reform of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, and the industrial action earlier this year and last year. Voice negotiated just as strongly as the other teaching unions – but Voice members also did everything in their power to ensure that children did not miss out on their education.

    Government objectives

    This Government’s programme of education reform is driven by three overarching objectives:

    • to close the attainment gap between children from richer and poorer backgrounds;
    • to ensure that our education system is on a par with the best in the world; and
    • to raise the professional status of teachers; trusting professionals and increasing autonomy.

    At the heart of this programme is a move away from a top-down, prescriptive model of education – with lever arch files full of guidance and painstakingly specific schemes of work – to a system that enhances and increases the independence of teachers.

    That’s why our White Paper setting out the Government’s education reform agenda was called The Importance of Teaching.

    And that’s why our whole approach is built on an inherent trust in the professionalism of teachers – removing the barriers preventing teachers from doing what they came into the profession to do.

    Importance of teaching

    International research shows that teacher quality is the single most important factor in pupil progress. As a 2007 report from McKinsey stated, “the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers”.

    Another McKinsey report, published last year, analysed Ofsted inspection reports and concluded:

    For every 100 schools that have good leadership and management, 93 will have good standards of student achievement. For every 100 schools that do not have good leadership and management, only one will have good standards of achievement.

    Studies in the United States have shown that a pupil taught for three consecutive years by a top 10 per cent performing teacher can make as much as two years more progress than a pupil taught for the same period by a teacher in the bottom 10 per cent of performance.

    For poorer children, the transformative effect of a good education can be even more marked.

    In June last year, PISA reported on how the education systems in different OECD countries helped children to overcome their social and economic background.

    In Shanghai three-quarters of students from poor backgrounds achieved more in their education than expected. In Singapore, nearly half did.

    In the UK, only a quarter of poor children managed to exceed expectations. Overall, this country ranked 39th out of 65 in terms of children’s ability to overcome their social and economic background..

    Autonomy

    I have long believed – perhaps because my mother was a very dedicated teacher herself – that education is the only route out of poverty. To this day, we know that there is no more effective means of helping people to get on in life.

    Over the years politicians of all hues, determined to create a more level playing field, have brought in various well-meaning, heavy-handed interventions.

    Yet the gap between children from the richest and poorest backgrounds has remained persistent, stubborn and entrenched.

    Last year, 58 per cent of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at A* to C including English and maths – but for children on free school meals, that figure was a disappointing 34 per cent.

    Our most pressing priority in government is to support the profession in reducing the gap between richer and poorer pupils.

    And I am acutely aware that overweening government intervention can be counter-productive.

    Over and over again, international evidence shows that professional autonomy is an essential feature of every high performing state education system.

    To quote from the OECD: “In countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better.”

    This does not, of course, mean that the Government should beat a full retreat: quite rightly, the public expects Government to take action where it identifies weakness.

    And we do need to set a clear direction in areas like phonics, where the evidence of its effectiveness is so overwhelming.

    Teachers already making a difference

    But in schools all over the country, teachers are already using our reforms to make a real difference.

    Over the last year we have seen an increase in the number of students taking maths and physics A levels, rising from 97,600 to 104,700.

    The number of students studying foreign languages has risen dramatically: 51 per cent of state secondary schools now have a majority of their pupils taking a language in Year 10, up from 36 per cent in 2010.

    And pupil absenteeism has fallen, with persistent absence dropping from 6.8 per cent last year to 6.1 per cent in 2012.

    In my view this is one of the most significant statistics of the year.

    Of those who miss between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of school, only 35 per cent manage to achieve five or more GCSEs at grade C or above including English and maths.

    And more than one in ten children who qualify for free school meals are persistently absent from school, compared to less than one in 20 of those who do not.

    These statistics show the great results which teachers are already achieving in schools. Today, I want to run through four key areas where we are working hard to give teachers even greater flexibility and freedom.

    Curriculum

    As many here will know, we are currently reforming the curriculum (with Voice’s help). We want to make it more stable and less cluttered; focused more tightly on the essential core of knowledge that every pupil should be taught.

    The new curriculum will set out the fixed reference points that are absolutely essential to a child’s education: allowing children to navigate their way from discipline to discipline, and to think critically and independently.

    As far as teachers are concerned, the great benefit of the new curriculum will be its permanence.

    Many teachers have told me how frustrating and stressful it is to work in an environment of constant change – and I know that this sense of powerlessness and uncertainty has a major impact on workforce wellbeing.

    Indeed, one of my greatest concerns about the QCDA’s 2007 reforms was that they actively promoted a state of perpetual revolution, encouraging constant change by contextualising concepts against current events – which then become obsolete almost immediately.

    This will not be true for the new curriculum.

    Core knowledge, by its very definition, does not need to be repeatedly revised to reflect changing fashions, or new current affairs.

    Instead, the new curriculum will focus on the fundamentals that will give children today (and tomorrow) the best possible start to their future.

    And I will count it as a success when teachers are able actually to laminate their lesson plans and recycle them from September to September.

    Of course, a leaner curriculum will also allow teachers far greater professional flexibility over how and what to teach.

    It will not specify how teachers should contextualise these concepts and subjects for their students. No longer will we create a whole host of hostages to fortune, doomed to become out-of-date before the ink is even dry on the page.

    Rather, we will leave it to teachers to decide how to bring these subjects and topics to life.

    Unleashing entrepreneurial spirit – Free and teaching schools

    Autonomy also gives teachers the opportunity to lead educational reform.

    In every area of the country, hundreds of outstanding schools have already been selected as Teaching Schools: leading peer- to-peer school improvement, delivering exemplary CPD, designating and brokering specialist leaders of education, carrying out valuable research and giving new and experienced teachers an opportunity to develop their professional skills throughout their careers.

    We’re also giving schools a stronger influence over the content of initial teacher training as well as the recruitment and selection of trainees, and continuing to ensure that ITT provision focuses on the quality of placements and selection.

    And, of course, perhaps the most potent symbol of teachers’ entrepreneurial spirit can be found in the very visible expansion of the academy and free school programmes.

    As we move into summer, over half (51%) of all secondary schools are now open or in the process of opening as academies, teaching over one and a quarter million children.

    There now are 1776 academies, of which over 1400 have opened since May 2010.

    The Free School programme is up and running in tandem and I am particularly keen to see teachers with entrepreneurial spirit and flair exploring its potential.

    Some of the most exciting free schools, like Bradford Science Academy, Canary Wharf College and Woodpecker Hall Primary Academy, are led by teachers – and these schools are going from strength to strength. Woodpecker has already applied to open another Free School in 2013, while the Confederation of British Teachers (which opened a free school in 2011) will open two more schools this September.

    It has always surprised me, having come from an accountancy background myself, that teachers haven’t been given the opportunity to establish practices in the same way as doctors, lawyers or accountants.

    We have now put a mechanism in place by which teachers can lead reform and I am delighted to see so many already taking advantage of it.

    Reducing bureaucracy

    As teachers step forward, using their knowledge and expertise to drive improvements, Government must step back.

    This brings me on to the third area I wanted to mention today: the reduction of red tape and paperwork.

    Two years ago, teachers in all types of schools told us that one of the biggest drains on their time was the burden of government bureaucracy, consuming far too much energy and time and sapping morale.

    That’s why the Department has removed 75 per cent of centrally-issued guidance over the last two years – some 20,000 pages.

    Behaviour and bullying guidance has been slimmed from 600 pages to 50; admissions guidance down from 160 pages to 50; health and safety guidance from 150 pages to just six.

    On top of this, we have scrapped the requirements on schools to set annual absence and performance targets; to consult on changes to the school day; and to publish school profiles.

    And we have removed a host of non-statutory requirements like the self evaluation form, replaced the bureaucratic financial management standard, stopped 10 data collections and clarified that neither the Department, nor Ofsted, require written lesson plans to be in place for every lesson.

    From September, we will be introducing further measures to remove or reduce some of the bureaucracy around teacher standards, admissions and school governance.

    I hope that these important modifications will go a long way to reducing those bureaucratic pressures on teachers that were highlighted as a major concern in the NFER report.

    Behaviour

    If we are to retain and attract the calibre of teaching talent that we need, then there is one issue in particular that I am keen to address.

    Some 52 per cent of teachers state that they have considered leaving the profession because of poor behaviour. 59 per cent believe that the standard of pupil behaviour has got worse during their careers.

    The OECD has estimated that 30 per cent of effective teaching time in schools is lost because of poor pupil behaviour.

    What is clear, I’m afraid, is that increasing numbers of children have not been set proper boundaries at home. They turn up at school aggressive, disruptive and unwilling to work; they disturb lessons for their peers, and make their teachers’ lives more difficult.

    I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the work that Philip and Voice are doing to equip teachers to handle this behaviour.

    And I am grateful for the opportunity to restate, in the strongest possible terms, my support for the profession in dealing with unruly pupils. No teacher, nursery worker or member of support staff should have to put up with aggressive, confrontational or abusive behaviour from the children in their care.

    Over the last two years, we have introduced a series of measures to support heads and teachers in managing poor behaviour; and I expect headteachers, in turn, to support their staff.

    Since the start of last month, schools have had increased search powers for items which they believe will lead to poor behaviour or disruption. We have clarified head teachers’ authority to discipline pupils for misbehaviour beyond the school gates, including bullying outside school. And we have given teachers the ability to issue no notice detentions after school.

    The new, simplified Ofsted inspection framework focuses on just four key areas of inspection – one of which is behaviour and safety.

    And in light of research showing that nearly half of serious allegations against school teachers are unsubstantiated, malicious or unfounded, we’ve given teachers faced with an accusation, a legal right to anonymity, until the point when or if they are charged with an offence.

    Finally, we have revised guidance to local authorities and schools to speed up the investigation process when a teacher or a member of staff is the subject of an allegation by a pupil.

    Conclusion

    I hope members of Voice will welcome our reforms to give teachers greater autonomy, flexibility and freedom.

    I also hope that members will take this as a sign of the exceptionally high regard in which government holds the teaching profession.

    My final words go to Philip, who has been such a great representative for Voice over these last six years, and for the profession as a whole; for the children he taught, and for the teachers he led, whilst deputy head at Old Clee Junior School.

    Philip, I know that you will be very sorely missed. It has been a great personal pleasure to work with you and I wish you all the best in your retirement.

    You campaigned hard and articulately over the years about the dangers to the teaching profession of the over-zealous attentions of government.

    And I hope you’ll agree that the move towards much greater professional autonomy for teachers is a worthy tribute to your work and campaigning during your distinguished tenure at Voice.

    Thank you.

  • Jean Coussins – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II (Baroness Coussins)

    Jean Coussins – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II (Baroness Coussins)

    The tribute made by Jean Coussins, Baroness Coussins, in the House of Lords on 10 September 2022.

    My Lords, both today and yesterday, many noble Lords have spoken about how Queen Elizabeth embodied the values and identity of our country. However, she also embodied an international mindset and global understanding, which focused, of course, on the Commonwealth to which she was so devoted but went much further still than that.

    One example of this was Her Majesty’s understanding of the importance and significance of being able to communicate in languages other than English, which often reflected so positively on the reputation of Her Majesty and the admiration in which she was held, as well as on the reputation and role of the United Kingdom. In 2014, she addressed a French state banquet in French, a language in which she was fluent.

    Perhaps the most unexpected yet hugely significant example came in 2011, when Her Majesty was the first British monarch to visit Ireland in 100 years. At the state dinner in Dublin Castle, she began her speech to her hosts in Irish Gaelic, astonishing the assembled audience, from President Mary McAleese down, into spontaneous applause. At the time, commentators and politicians remarked on the incredibly astute judgment and sensitivity shown by the Queen in this gesture; it was said to contribute enormously to the future of relationships all round.

    Other noble Lords have referred to Her Majesty’s consummate skill in diplomacy and soft power. Her ability to use foreign languages so judiciously was a classic example of this, for which we should all be grateful and endeavour to emulate.